Polygraph tests to assess veracity are widely promoted for application in sexual abuse matters. The use of polygraph tests is advocated despite substantial differences in professional and scientific opinion about the validity of such techniques. Polygraph diagnoses of an individual's deception are inferences made by an examiner who compares physiological reactions to a set of questions. The test situation, however, is also used to induce examinees to admit crimes. In addition to their use in investigations, polygraph tests are used by defendants seeking exculpatory evidence and by treatment and probation programs to assess and monitor sexual offenders. Although there are dissenters, most knowledgeable scientists consider polygraph testing as unvalidated. Professionals need to access the literature on polygraph testing, evaluate the efficacy and ethics of polygraph tests in their community, and further develop standards for their use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrams, S.
(1973). Polygraph validity and reliability: A review. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 17, 313-327.
2.
Abrams, S.
(1975). The validity of the polygraph technique with children. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3, 310-311.
3.
Abrams, S.
(1989). Probation polygraph surveillance of child abusers. The Prosecutor, 22, 29-38.
4.
Abrams, S.
(1991a). Lies: The polygraph as a tool in the treatment of sex abusers. Preventing Sexual Abuse, 2, 10-15.
5.
Abrams, S.
(1991b). The use of polygraphy with sex offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 239-263.
6.
Abrams, S.
(1999). A response to Honts on the issue of the discussion of questions between charts. Polygraph28, 223-228.
7.
Abrams, S.
, & Abrams, J. (1993). Polygraph testing of the pedophile. Portland, OR: Ryan Guinner.
8.
Abrams, S.
, Hoyt, D., & Jewell, C. (1991). The effectiveness of the disclosure test with sex abusers of children. Polygraph, 20, 197-203.
9.
Abrams, S.
, & Ogard, E. (1986). Polygraph surveillance of probationers. Polygraph, 15, 174-182.
10.
Aguinis, H.
, Pierce, C. A., & Quigley, B. M. (1995). Enhancing the validity of self-reported alcohol and marijuana consumption using a bogus pipeline procedure: A meta-analytic review. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 515-527.
11.
Ahlmeyer, S.
, Heil, P., McKee, B., & English, K. (2000). Impact of polygraph on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 123-138.
12.
Amato, S. L.
, & Honts, C. R. (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests?: A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22.
13.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
. (1997). Forensic evaluation of children and adolescents who may have been sexually abused. Washington, DC: Author.
14.
American Psychological Association
. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
15.
Ansley, N.
(1990). The validity and reliability of polygraph decisions in real cases. Polygraph, 19, 169-181.
16.
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
. (1997). Ethical standards and principles for the management of sexual abusers. Beaverton, OR: Author.
17.
Baranowski, G. H.
(1998). Managing sex offenders in the community with the assistance of polygraph testing. Polygraph, 27, 75-88.
18.
Bashore, T. R.
, & Rapp, P. E. (1993). Are there alternatives to traditional polygraph procedures?Psychological Bulletin, 113, 3-22.
19.
Ben-Shakhar, G.
, & Furedy, J. (1990). Theories and applications in the detection of deception. New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
20.
Blasingame, G. D.
(1998). Suggested clinical uses of polygraphy in community-based sexual offender-treatment programs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 37-45.
21.
Branson, H. K.
(1999). How Hawaii's treatment for sex offenders works: Intense follow-up is the key. Corrections Technology and Management, 3, 54-56.
22.
Center for Sex Offender Management
. (1999). Case studies on the Center for Sex Offender Management's national resources sites. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
23.
Center for Sex Offender Management
. (2000). Community supervision of the sex offender: An overview of current and promising practices. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
24.
Chambers, H.
(1994). Snohomish County Juvenile Court Sex Offender Treatment Program: Policy statement on the use of polygraph in treatment of juvenile sex offenders. Everett, WA: Snohomish County Juvenile Court Services.
25.
Colorado Department of Corrections
. (1998). Evaluation report: Integration of polygraph testing with adult sex offenders. Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice.
26.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Woodward, SJC-07635 (D. Boston, 1998).
27.
Cooley-Towell, S.
, Pasini-Hill, D., & Patrick, D. (2000). Value of the post-conviction polygraph: The importance of sanctions. Polygraph, 29, 6-19.
28.
Corwin, D. L.
(1988). Early diagnosis of sexual abuse: Diminishing the lasting effects. In G. E. Wyatt & G. J. Powell (Eds.), Lasting effects of child sexual abuse (pp. 251-269). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
Cross, T. P.
, & Saxe, L. (1992). A critique of the validity of polygraph testing in child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1, 19-33.
30.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 C. Ct. Supp. 2786 (1993).
31.
Davis, L.
, McShane, M. D., & Williams, F. P. (1995). Controlling computer access to pornography: Special conditions for sex offenders. Federal Probation, 59, 43-48.
32.
Davis, P. W.
, & McKenzie-Rundle, P. (1984). The social organization of lie-detector tests. Urban Life, 13, 177-205.
33.
Emerick, R. L.
, & Dutton, W. A. (1993). The effect of polygraphy on the self report of adolescent sex offenders: Implications for risk assessment. Annals of Sex Research, 6, 83-103.
34.
English, K.
(1998). The containment approach: An aggressive strategy for the community management of adult sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law Special Issue: Sex Offenders: Scientific, Legal, and Policy Perspectives, 4, 218-235.
35.
English, K.
, Colling-Chadwick, S., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1996). How are adult felony sex offenders managed on probation and parole?Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice.
36.
English, K.
, Jones, L., Patrick, D., Pasini-Hill, D., & Gonzalez, S. (2000). We need you to become experts in the post-conviction polygraph. Polygraph, 29, 44-62.
37.
English, K.
, Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
38.
English, K.
, Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (Eds.). (1997). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach (National Institute of Justice Research Brief NCJ 163387). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
39.
Faller, K.
(1997). The polygraph, its use in cases of alleged sexual abuse: An exploratory study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 993-1008.
40.
Faller, K. C.
, & Henry, J. (2000). Child sexual abuse; A case study in community collaboration. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1215-1225.
41.
Fisher, C. B.
, & Whiting, K. A. (1998). How valid are child sexual abuse validations? In S. Ceci & H. Hembrooke (Eds.), Expert witnesses in child abuse cases: What can and should be said in court (pp. 159-184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
42.
Forensic Research
. (1997). Validity and reliability of polygraph testing. Polygraph, 26, 215-239.
43.
Furedy, J. J.
(1996). The North American polygraph and psychophysiology: Disinterested, uninterested, and interested perspectives. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 97-105.
44.
Gallup Organization
. (1984). Survey of members of the society for psychophysiological research concerning their opinions of polygraph test interpretation. Polygraph, 13, 153.
45.
Gatlin, C. H.
, Criss, S. E., & Porter, W. D. (1999, September). The development of a collaborative program for sex offender treatment using the treatment triangle approach. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Lake Buena Vista, FL.
46.
Goldzband, M. G.
(1999). Polygraphy revisited: U.S. v. Scheffer. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 27, 133-142.
47.
Hager, D. M.
(1989). A guide to conducting polygraph examinations in sexual matters. Polygraph, 18, 78-89.
48.
Hagler, H. L.
(1995). Polygraph as a measure of progress in the assessment, treatment, and surveillance of sex offenders. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 2, 98-111.
49.
Harrison, J. S.
, & Kirkpatrick, B. (2000). Polygraph testing and behavioral change with sex offenders in an outpatient setting: An exploratory study. Polygraph, 29, 20-25.
50.
Heil, P.
, Ahlmeyer, S., McCullar, B., & McKee, B. (2000). Integration of polygraph testing with sexual offenders in the Colorado Department of Corrections. Polygraph, 29, 26-35.
51.
Holden, E. J.
(2000). Pre-and post-conviction polygraph: Building blocks for the future—Procedures, principles, and practices. Polygraph, 29, 69-98.
52.
Holmes, W. D.
(1995). Interrogation. Polygraph, 24, 237-258.
53.
Honts, C. R.
, Raskin, D. C., Amato, S. L., Gordon, A., & Devitt, M. (2000). The hybrid directed-lie test, the overemphasized comparison question, chimeras and other inventions: A rejoinder to Abrams (1999). Polygraph, 29, 156-168.
54.
Iacono, W.
(1991). Can we determine the accuracy of polygraph tests? In J. R. Jennings & P. K. Ackles (Eds.), Advances in psychophysiology: A research annual (Vol. 4, pp. 201-207). London: Jessica Kingsley.
55.
Iacono, W.
, & Lykken, D. T. (1997a). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case against polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 582-618). St. Paul, MN: West.
56.
Iacono, W. G.
, & Lykken, D. T. (1997b). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426-433.
57.
Iacono, W. G.
, & Patrick, C. J. (1987). What psychologists should know about lie detection. In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 460-489). New York: John Wiley.
58.
Iacono, W. G.
, & Patrick, C. J. (1988). Assessing deception: Polygraph techniques. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 203-233). New York: Guilford.
59.
Jones, E. E.
, & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 349-364.
60.
Jones, L.
, Pullen, S., English, K., Crouch, J., Colling-Chadwick, S., & Patzman, J. (1996). Summary of the national telephone survey of probation and parole supervisors. In K. English, S. Pullen, & L. Jones (Eds.), Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach (pp. 3.1-3.14). Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
61.
Katkin, E. S.
(1987). Psychophysiological assessment for decisionmaking: Conceptions and misconceptions. In D. R. Peterson & D. B. Fishman (Eds.), Assessment for decision. Rutgers symposia on applied psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 107-133). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
62.
Kleinmuntz, B.
, & Szucko, J. J. (1984). Lie detection in ancient and modern times: A call for contemporary scientific study. American Psychologist, 39, 766-776.
63.
Knopp, F. H.
, Freeman-Longo, R., & Stevenson, W. (1994). Nationwide survey of juvenile and adult sex offender treatment program and models. Orwell, VT: Safer Society.
64.
Lawrence, S.
(1998, August). Shedding light on the polygraph [Letter to the editor]. APA Monitor, 29, 3.
Lykken, D.
(1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Perseus.
67.
Marston, W. M.
(1917). Systolic blood pressure symptoms of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 117-163.
68.
Matte, J. A.
(1996). Forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph: Scientific truth verification—Lie detection. Williamsville, NY: J.A.M. (Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.mattepolygraph.com)
69.
Matte, J. A.
(2000). A critical analysis of Honts' study: The discussion (stimulation) of comparison questions. Polygraph, 29, 146-150.
70.
McKay, B.
(2000). State of polygraph testing on sex offenders under community supervision in Texas. Polygraph, 29, 36-39.
71.
Murphy, C. A.
, & Murphy, J. K. (1997). Polygraph admissibility: A critical analysis under standards set by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical. Update, 10, 1-2.
72.
Myers, J. B.
(1998). Legal issues in child abuse and neglect practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73.
O'Connell, M.A. (1998). Using polygraph testing to assess deviant sexual history of sex offenders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3023.
74.
Office of Research and Statistics
. (2000). Combo of polygraph & treatment reveals many sex offenders offend across multiple relationship, age, gender, & crime type categories. Elements of Change: Highlighting Trends and Issues in the Criminal Justice System, 5, 1-7.
75.
Oregon Department of Corrections
. (1995). Sex offender community notification in Oregon (Report for the Oregon legislature, NCJ No. 155233). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
76.
Parson, A.
(2000, August 15). The quest for truth. The Boston Globe, pp. F1, F3.
77.
Patrick, C. J.
, & Iacono, W. G. (1991). Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229-238.
78.
Pence, D.
, & Wilson, C. (1994). Team investigation of child sexual abuse: The uneasy alliance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79.
Pullen, S.
, Olsen, S., Brown, G., & Amich, D. (1996). Using the polygraph. In K. English, S. Pullen, & L. Jones (Eds.), Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach (pp. 15.1-15.18). Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
80.
Raskin, D. C.
, Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). The scientific status of research on polygraph tests: The case for polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), The West companion to scientific evidence (pp. 565-582). St. Paul, MN: West.
81.
Raskin, D. C.
, & Steller, M. (1989). Assessing credibility of allegations of child sexual abuse: Polygraph examinations and statement analysis. In H. Wegener, F. Lösel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behavior and the justice system: Psychological perspectives (pp. 290-302). New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
82.
Reid, J. E.
, & Inbau, F. E. (1977). Truth and deception—The polygraph technique (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
83.
Research disputes assumptions
. (1988). National District Attorneys Association Bulletin, 7, 1-3.
84.
Roese, N. J.
, & Jamieson, D. W. (1993). Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 363-375.
85.
Saxe, L.
(1991). Science and the CQT polygraph: A theoretical critique. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26, 223-231.
86.
Saxe, L.
, & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 5, 203-223.
87.
Saxe, L.
, Dougherty, D., & Cross, T. P. (1983). Scientific validity of polygraph testing (OTA-TM-H-15) (Report for the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
88.
Saxe, L.
, Dougherty, D., & Cross, T. P. (1985). The validity of polygraph testing: Scientific analysis and public controversy. American Psychologist, 40, 355-366.
89.
Schlank, A. M.
, & Shaw, T. (1996). Treating sexual offenders who deny their guilt: A pilot study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8, 17-23.
90.
Sinclair Seminars. (1998). Sex offender evaluation and treatment training program [Brochure]. Madison, WI: Author.
91.
Sloan, L. M.
(1995). Revictimization by polygraph: The practice of polygraphing survivors of sexual assault. Medicine & Law, 14, 255-267.
92.
Smith, B. E.
, & Goretsky-Elstein, S. (1993). The prosecution of child sexual and physical abuse cases (Final report of a grant from the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect). Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
93.
Task Force on the Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sexual Abuse in Children. (1997). Psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in children (2nd ed.). Chicago: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
94.
Task Force on the Use of Anatomical Dolls in Child Sexual Abuse Assessments. (1995). Use of anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse assessments. Chicago: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
95.
United States v. Frank Javier Cordoba, 158 (D. California, 1998), aff'd, SA CR 95-39-GLT[SF].
96.
United States v. Frye, 293 F. 1013, 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
97.
United States v. Scheffer, 118 S. Ct. Supp. 1261 (D. Washington, 1998), aff'd, USCA Dkt. No. 95-0521/AF. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces).
98.
Williams, V. L.
(1995). Response to Cross and Saxe's “A critique of the validity of polygraph testing in child sexual abuse cases.”Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 55-71.
99.
Williams, V. L.
(1999). Response to Cross and Saxe's “A critique of the validity of polygraph testing in child sexual abuse cases.”Polygraph, 28, 105-116.
